Since most of you are seemingly missing the entire point of the review, let me point out a couple things. Of course DVE has a bias. It's a Digital Video Editing site. It's testing equipment used by Media Professionals, and they test software that is most commonly used by those individuals.
After Effects is industry standard for compositing. Sure, programs like Shake and Combustion are out there, but every university in the nation teaches After Effects. Also, they did several photoshop tests as well. Obviously PS is industry standard. Actually, it is it's own industry.
For those of you who say the tests were biased towards PC's, think again. The review clearly mentions that for ALL graphics files run, size was limited to DV video resolution. They stayed away from prepress files which in our studio easily run upwards of 1.5GB or more with filters, etc. This would have certainly killed the Mac even more with it's bus limitations, and inefficient use of memory.
Furthermore, you complain that they use AE. What else would they have used. Remember, these are targeted towards video professionals. Avid? Sorry, to dependant on external hardware for performance. FCP? Yeah right, no comparison.
By the way, just because you can't use a product on a platform doesn't inherently compromise that platform. In order to compare, you have to actually be able to run the program on the OS. Therefore, your cleaner arguement is irrelevant.
I'm not saying it was a perfect test. But the reality is, if you are a video editing professional, you're going to spend a lot less time waiting for your projects to render on a PC. Of course, for me, FCP is indespensible, but I would certainly love for it to increase in efficiency to better compete with Avid suites.
As for the price thing - even if you can compare them by price, who cares, the Dell kicked it's butt in performance in this area. And since this area is really the only market that the MAC has any chance of gaining share, it's pretty depressing unless APPLE does something fast.
<strong>Why are some of you who are complaining about AE not being optimized for the Mac, completely ignoring the fact that the test was also done with Photoshop? There is no program more optimized than PS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Photoshop is certainly not the most optimized app for Mac.
Only a few filters make use of two processors and only a few filters make use of AltiVec.
What they should have done in the test was running AE and PS at the same time in some of the test (eg. doing PS work while AE renders).
It?s funny how good of a test program PS is when Steve is using it to the show the Mac kicking the crap out of a not so top of the line PC. Suddenly, when comparing the top Mac to the top PC and the Mac comes out on the losing end, PS is an unfair test for the Mac. I just don?t get it.
Please do not attempt to use logic in the face of the RDF. Macs are fast 'cause Steve said so! Interestingly though, even Steve hasn't dared publicly say so in quite some time.
<strong>Since most of you are seemingly missing the entire point of the review, let me point out a couple things. Of course DVE has a bias. It's a Digital Video Editing site. It's testing equipment used by Media Professionals, and they test software that is most commonly used by those individuals.
After Effects is industry standard for compositing. Sure, programs like Shake and Combustion are out there, but every university in the nation teaches After Effects. Also, they did several photoshop tests as well. Obviously PS is industry standard. Actually, it is it's own industry.
For those of you who say the tests were biased towards PC's, think again. The review clearly mentions that for ALL graphics files run, size was limited to DV video resolution. They stayed away from prepress files which in our studio easily run upwards of 1.5GB or more with filters, etc. This would have certainly killed the Mac even more with it's bus limitations, and inefficient use of memory.
Furthermore, you complain that they use AE. What else would they have used. Remember, these are targeted towards video professionals. Avid? Sorry, to dependant on external hardware for performance. FCP? Yeah right, no comparison.
By the way, just because you can't use a product on a platform doesn't inherently compromise that platform. In order to compare, you have to actually be able to run the program on the OS. Therefore, your cleaner arguement is irrelevant.
I'm not saying it was a perfect test. But the reality is, if you are a video editing professional, you're going to spend a lot less time waiting for your projects to render on a PC. Of course, for me, FCP is indespensible, but I would certainly love for it to increase in efficiency to better compete with Avid suites.
As for the price thing - even if you can compare them by price, who cares, the Dell kicked it's butt in performance in this area. And since this area is really the only market that the MAC has any chance of gaining share, it's pretty depressing unless APPLE does something fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree about the Cleaner comment. Cleaner is available for PC and Mac. Version 6 isn't available yet for both bu they could have run a nice sidebar about Mac differences on Cleaner 5 and 6 and then run the benchmarks.
Avid DVXpress 3.5 is available on both platforms. They could have run some tests using that program as well. Charlie White even calls Premiere a "fine editing program" and I wouldn't feed it to my dog.
I have read that website and articles from it quite a few times. I would say they have a considerable PC bias.
<strong>It?s funny how good of a test program PS is when Steve is using it to the show the Mac kicking the crap out of a not so top of the line PC. Suddenly, when comparing the top Mac to the top PC and the Mac comes out on the losing end, PS is an unfair test for the Mac. I just don?t get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's funny that if a Mac user said that PS was perfect for comparing computers, it suddenly means that every Mac users think that. I just don't get it.
There were a lot of complaints back when Apple ran those tests.
Photoshop is certainly not the most optimized app for Mac.
Only a few filters make use of two processors and only a few filters make use of AltiVec.
What they should have done in the test was running AE and PS at the same time in some of the test (eg. doing PS work while AE renders).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why Photoshop tests can go either way. I could run the same number of tests, only different filters and whatnot, and have the Mac come out on top. It all depends on which computer you want to win. And what computer do you think White wants to win?
<strong>complaining about spelling when the argument is obvious and clear just illustrates you have no argument</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot to read the first part of my post, moron.
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>Dispute it all you want. I don't think Dell's website is lying to me about the price, but you never know.
The P4 trashes the G4, sure, when you use software that wont make use of the G4.
Just keep this in mind, the most the Mac was behind was two times the time of the P4, were AE to take 100% instead of 55%, the numbers would be very close and the G4 would come out on top on a lot of those tests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think "famous" means well-known in general, while "infamous" means well-known in a bad way. You could say that both Atilla the Hun and Mahatma Ghandi are famous, but only Atilla is infamous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this rings a bell... makes sense... i forgot all those SAT words...
Support anecdotes are dangerous, because they vary wildly. For example: At work, we have Dell's top-of-the-line enterprise support, courtesy of the University (which is a huge customer). We had a brand new laptop arrive with a bad power cord. They wanted to charge us $40 + S/H to replace it, and it took them a week to get it to us. We had another laptop arrive DOA, and Dell refused to take it back. We ended up banning the campus rep from our offices until they finally did - a solid year later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm with Amorph -- there are plenty of horror stories to be told about Dell's support for those who have used it. Most recently a guy at work fried the motherboard on his Inspiron laptop, and it took ten phone calls and four visits over the course of several weeks by Dell techs to get it working. They kept putting bad "refub" motherboards in as replacements, and wondering why there was still a problem. By the time they finally came up with a replacement part that wasn't pre-fried, it finally worked.
Comments
After Effects is industry standard for compositing. Sure, programs like Shake and Combustion are out there, but every university in the nation teaches After Effects. Also, they did several photoshop tests as well. Obviously PS is industry standard. Actually, it is it's own industry.
For those of you who say the tests were biased towards PC's, think again. The review clearly mentions that for ALL graphics files run, size was limited to DV video resolution. They stayed away from prepress files which in our studio easily run upwards of 1.5GB or more with filters, etc. This would have certainly killed the Mac even more with it's bus limitations, and inefficient use of memory.
Furthermore, you complain that they use AE. What else would they have used. Remember, these are targeted towards video professionals. Avid? Sorry, to dependant on external hardware for performance. FCP? Yeah right, no comparison.
By the way, just because you can't use a product on a platform doesn't inherently compromise that platform. In order to compare, you have to actually be able to run the program on the OS. Therefore, your cleaner arguement is irrelevant.
I'm not saying it was a perfect test. But the reality is, if you are a video editing professional, you're going to spend a lot less time waiting for your projects to render on a PC. Of course, for me, FCP is indespensible, but I would certainly love for it to increase in efficiency to better compete with Avid suites.
As for the price thing - even if you can compare them by price, who cares, the Dell kicked it's butt in performance in this area. And since this area is really the only market that the MAC has any chance of gaining share, it's pretty depressing unless APPLE does something fast.
<strong>Why are some of you who are complaining about AE not being optimized for the Mac, completely ignoring the fact that the test was also done with Photoshop? There is no program more optimized than PS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Photoshop is certainly not the most optimized app for Mac.
Only a few filters make use of two processors and only a few filters make use of AltiVec.
What they should have done in the test was running AE and PS at the same time in some of the test (eg. doing PS work while AE renders).
Please do not attempt to use logic in the face of the RDF. Macs are fast 'cause Steve said so! Interestingly though, even Steve hasn't dared publicly say so in quite some time.
<strong>Since most of you are seemingly missing the entire point of the review, let me point out a couple things. Of course DVE has a bias. It's a Digital Video Editing site. It's testing equipment used by Media Professionals, and they test software that is most commonly used by those individuals.
After Effects is industry standard for compositing. Sure, programs like Shake and Combustion are out there, but every university in the nation teaches After Effects. Also, they did several photoshop tests as well. Obviously PS is industry standard. Actually, it is it's own industry.
For those of you who say the tests were biased towards PC's, think again. The review clearly mentions that for ALL graphics files run, size was limited to DV video resolution. They stayed away from prepress files which in our studio easily run upwards of 1.5GB or more with filters, etc. This would have certainly killed the Mac even more with it's bus limitations, and inefficient use of memory.
Furthermore, you complain that they use AE. What else would they have used. Remember, these are targeted towards video professionals. Avid? Sorry, to dependant on external hardware for performance. FCP? Yeah right, no comparison.
By the way, just because you can't use a product on a platform doesn't inherently compromise that platform. In order to compare, you have to actually be able to run the program on the OS. Therefore, your cleaner arguement is irrelevant.
I'm not saying it was a perfect test. But the reality is, if you are a video editing professional, you're going to spend a lot less time waiting for your projects to render on a PC. Of course, for me, FCP is indespensible, but I would certainly love for it to increase in efficiency to better compete with Avid suites.
As for the price thing - even if you can compare them by price, who cares, the Dell kicked it's butt in performance in this area. And since this area is really the only market that the MAC has any chance of gaining share, it's pretty depressing unless APPLE does something fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree about the Cleaner comment. Cleaner is available for PC and Mac. Version 6 isn't available yet for both bu they could have run a nice sidebar about Mac differences on Cleaner 5 and 6 and then run the benchmarks.
Avid DVXpress 3.5 is available on both platforms. They could have run some tests using that program as well. Charlie White even calls Premiere a "fine editing program" and I wouldn't feed it to my dog.
I have read that website and articles from it quite a few times. I would say they have a considerable PC bias.
Nick
<strong>It?s funny how good of a test program PS is when Steve is using it to the show the Mac kicking the crap out of a not so top of the line PC. Suddenly, when comparing the top Mac to the top PC and the Mac comes out on the losing end, PS is an unfair test for the Mac. I just don?t get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's funny that if a Mac user said that PS was perfect for comparing computers, it suddenly means that every Mac users think that. I just don't get it.
There were a lot of complaints back when Apple ran those tests.
<strong>
Photoshop is certainly not the most optimized app for Mac.
Only a few filters make use of two processors and only a few filters make use of AltiVec.
What they should have done in the test was running AE and PS at the same time in some of the test (eg. doing PS work while AE renders).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is why Photoshop tests can go either way. I could run the same number of tests, only different filters and whatnot, and have the Mac come out on top. It all depends on which computer you want to win. And what computer do you think White wants to win?
<strong>complaining about spelling when the argument is obvious and clear just illustrates you have no argument</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot to read the first part of my post, moron.
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>Dispute it all you want. I don't think Dell's website is lying to me about the price, but you never know.
The P4 trashes the G4, sure, when you use software that wont make use of the G4.
Just keep this in mind, the most the Mac was behind was two times the time of the P4, were AE to take 100% instead of 55%, the numbers would be very close and the G4 would come out on top on a lot of those tests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
I think "famous" means well-known in general, while "infamous" means well-known in a bad way. You could say that both Atilla the Hun and Mahatma Ghandi are famous, but only Atilla is infamous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this rings a bell... makes sense... i forgot all those SAT words...
<strong>
Support anecdotes are dangerous, because they vary wildly. For example: At work, we have Dell's top-of-the-line enterprise support, courtesy of the University (which is a huge customer). We had a brand new laptop arrive with a bad power cord. They wanted to charge us $40 + S/H to replace it, and it took them a week to get it to us. We had another laptop arrive DOA, and Dell refused to take it back. We ended up banning the campus rep from our offices until they finally did - a solid year later.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm with Amorph -- there are plenty of horror stories to be told about Dell's support for those who have used it. Most recently a guy at work fried the motherboard on his Inspiron laptop, and it took ten phone calls and four visits over the course of several weeks by Dell techs to get it working. They kept putting bad "refub" motherboards in as replacements, and wondering why there was still a problem. By the time they finally came up with a replacement part that wasn't pre-fried, it finally worked.